>> So will this create a FAIL if someone runs the testsuite with the >> autovec preference set to scalable? No, it won't. Since it is always -fno-vect-cost-model. When a scalable vector doesn't have 256bit vector, it always XFAIL, for example, ARM SVE.
>> Or are the fallbacks to VLS still >> available when we prefer scalable vectors? Yes. since it is -fno-vect-cost-model. juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai From: Jeff Law Date: 2023-11-07 11:23 To: Juzhe-Zhong; gcc-patches CC: rguenther Subject: Re: [PATCH] test: Fix XPASS of bb-slp-43.c for RVV On 11/6/23 15:35, Juzhe-Zhong wrote: > RVV is variable length vector but also has 256 bit VLS mode vector. > This test is vectorized as: > > f: > vsetivli zero,8,e32,m2,ta,ma > vle32.v v2,0(a0) > vmv.v.i v4,1 > vle16.v v1,0(a1) > vmseq.vv v0,v2,v4 > vsetvli zero,zero,e16,m1,ta,ma > vmseq.vi v1,v1,2 > vsetvli zero,zero,e32,m2,ta,ma > vmv.v.i v2,0 > vmand.mm v0,v0,v1 > vmerge.vvm v2,v2,v4,v0 > vse32.v v2,0(a0) > ret > > Use 256 bit vector, so remove XFAIL for 256 bits vector. > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > * gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-43.c: Fix XPASS for RVV. So will this create a FAIL if someone runs the testsuite with the autovec preference set to scalable? Or are the fallbacks to VLS still available when we prefer scalable vectors? jeff
